So I’m a little confused up in here. Does Anthony Weiner represent New York or San Fransisco. See, the thing is that SFO is on verge on banning male circumcision. I think we have explored this topic before, and we will again in a moment, but the theory I’m working on is that Cong. Weiner was simply making a statement about his free expression of religion and what have you.
That’s the argument First Amendment attorney Martin Nussbaum makes in this NPR story: http://n.pr/kNYoJ5. Really, Mr. Nussbaum? Nothing personal at stake here? Guess it’s not really a conflict of interest. But you have got to believe Ned and Sara Buskirk are going to push back on. No mutilating little boys for them.
Especially not the little boy to whom Sara gave birth to, at home, 8 weeks ago, “right over there on the rug.” Who did the delivery, the Rug Doctor? Did the carpet burn take care of the circumcision project? With Sara all laid up what with the birthing and all, have you gotten around to cleaning the rug, Ned, or were you just going to let the dog have at it?
I guess these questions are a bit invasive, but a ban on circumcision seems a bit invasive too. Especially one without a religious exemption. In terms of lasting trauma, either there is none or a lot of things just got tied together for me. Moreover, now that everyone has seen a congressman’s weiner, boys everywhere will want to look like Tony. Let’s not take that away.